NewEnergyNews

Gleanings from the web and the world, condensed for convenience, illustrated for enlightenment, arranged for impact...

While the OFFICE of President remains in highest regard at NewEnergyNews, this administration's position on climate change makes it impossible to regard THIS president with respect. Below is the NewEnergyNews theme song until 2020.

Thursday, January 31, 2008

“CLEAN” COAL: CURE OR CURSE?

In light of yesterday’s news about the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) dropping its funding for the carbon-capture-and-sequestration (CCS) FutureGen project (SeeDOE DROPPING FUTUREGEN?), this BBC News story’s title seems a little out of date. But carbon-capture-and-sequestration (CCS) is at the top of the agenda for the European Union (EU).

Among the most important of the new measures in the European Commission (EC)’s recommendations for Phase 3 of the EU’s climate change and emissions reductions program is that captured and sequestered greenhouse gases (GHGs) created by fossil fuel-burning power plants should not count as emissions against the power company’s or country’s allocated caps.

The reason DOE dropped its backing for FutureGen was the cost. Because the EU ETS puts a price on emissions in the EU, the new EC-proposed measure will encourage CCS technology development by defraying its cost, the single factor most slowing the implementation of what some call “clean” coal.

This idea of “clean” coal was also behind the big push by EU leaders at the climate change conference in Bali last month to set up a technology-sharing mechanism whereby more advanced nations can help developing nations like India and China get up to speed on CCS.

The biggest problem with the concept of “clean” coal is that coal can never really be clean because of the way it is mined and because of the enormous quantity of emissions generated in transporting coal from mines to power plants. Mahi Sideridou, Greenpeace: “If you give financial and political priority to carbon capture and storage, you're not giving as much emphasis to the real solutions on the table like energy efficiency and renewable energy…”

It is likely that many EU leaders, hard-thinking realists, assume there is no way to prevent the burning of coal so it would be significantly better to remove even a portion of the GHGs from the process. Malcolm Wickes, UK energy minister: "It's not just another technology…This is absolutely vital…The world will be burning fossil fuels - oil, gas, coal - for 100 or more years…Unless we can find ways of capturing that carbon dioxide, all is lost."

There it is: The idealistic lady from Greenpeace? Or the British lion of harsh reality?

Or perhaps there is a middle path. CCS has not demonstrated the capacity to effectively capture or safely store emissions. Let the research continue. Meanwhile, get serious about building the wind and solar and wave energy infrastructure of the future. By the time CCS proves itself, there may be no need for it.

WHATCarbon capture and storage (CCS)is a concept more than something specific. Science and industry are testing a variety of ways to trap CO2 and other GHGs generated coal- and gas-burning plants and bury them in geologic or anthropogenic containment.

WHENNorway has declared it will use technologies such as CCS to be carbon neutral by 2030.

WHERE- Norway, an oil-rich nation that prides itself on its nurturing relationship to its environment, has long been at work developing a way to trap and store GHGs.- Norway’s Sleipner offshore oil and gas drilling project has long been testing a type of CCS technology by sequestering GHGs in undersea oil wells and slat formations.

WHY- Norway is not a member of the EU but has assented to the EU climate change program.- Current hopes of “clean” coal is driving a variety of experiments in CCS.- Norway’s project at its Mongstad oil refinery was cancelled because of the cost. (See CANCEL THE CAPTURE, IT COSTS TOO MUCH- Environmentalists and academic studies have raised questions about the long term safety and stability of the acidic gases’ storage.- The UK government has been showing an increasing interest in CCS technology and recently set up a funding plan.

QUOTES- Helge Smaamo, Sleipner manager, Statoil: "The gas in the Sleipner west field has 9% carbon dioxide…We have to get that down to 2%, because gas burns much better at 2% than at 9%, so we separate a lot of it out by chemical processes…We then absorb the gas, put it under huge pressure and inject it under the seabed by drilling a well." - Mahi Sideridou, EU policy director, Greenpeace: "We have concerns about leakage - either slow leakage or catastrophic abrupt releases of carbon dioxide…"

AUSTRALIAN UTILITY IN BIG WIND BUY

What a difference a policy makes. Australia’s previous Prime Minister, John Howard, entered office a climate change doubter, a coal and nuclear plant proponent. The Australian people, not known for their docility, slapped him down, turned him into an emissions trader and then threw him out of office in favor of Kevin Rudd.

Al Gore campaigned for Kevin Rudd. Does that explain it? One of the first things Rudd did after becoming PM was fulfill his campaign promise to enroll Australia into the Kyoto Protocols. It is not surprising, in light of these events, to find Origin Energy, Australia’s second biggest utility, aggressively moving into New Energy. Origin has supplied wind energy to its customers before but this is the first time it has sought to co-own the farms. There is worldwide consolidation in the wind energy business in which utilities like Origin are acquiring wind farm ownership in partnership with operators.

Make no mistake, Origin’s move is not because Al Gore talks so admirably and truly about climate change. It is because Kevin Rudd’s government’s policies supporting emissions reductions in the fight against climate change favor New Energy.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., current U.S. leaders appear ready to let the production tax credits (PTCs) and investment tax credits (ITCs) that have supported unprecedented expansion in U.S. New Energy over the last 3 years lapse, dooming the solar, wind, biomass and other New Energy industries to a year of stagnation. Good news emerged late Wednesday when it was announced Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) had been able to get the PTCs and ITCs into the Senate's version of the stimulus package. (SeeGREAT NEWS FOR NEW ENERGY!andWind, Solar Tax Credits Likely Not in U.S. Tax Stimulus Deal – Aide) Doubt remains as to whether the New Energy incentives can survive the legislative process.

Just when the jobs and investment these industries have brought and would continue to bring to a teetering economy could mean so much, Senators and Congressmen may succumb to the bullying of the fossil fuels industries which clamor for the protection of their subsidies - at the cost of tomorrow's energy infrastructure.

WHATThrough Epuron, Conergy has partnered with Origin on the rights for 3 Australian wind farm developments and options for 5 times as much future wind capacity development. Though Origin has acquired wind energy from other providers, this is its first venture into wind energy ownership.

WHENOrigin expects the first wind farm to be online in 2009.

WHERE- Conergy is headquartered in Hamburg, Germany, with an aggressive New Energy branch. It has U.S. offices in New Mexico and Colorado.- Origin Energy is based in Sydney, Australia.

WHY- Origin purchased 90 megawatts of wind capacity and an option for 500 megawatts more from Epuron for 7 to 10 million euros ($10.3million to $14.8 million)- Origin Energy is Australia’s second-largest provider of retail energy. It does oil and gas exploration, has 3 million+ gas/electric customers in Australia-New Zealand-Pacifica, and has extensive natural gas generating and pipeline holdings. It is already Australia’s biggest wind energy buyer, has geothermal holdings and is developing a “sliver cell” solar technology.- Conergy is a global New Energy giant with partners producing retail products in photovoltaics, solar thermal, small wind and solar hot water.

QUOTESKaren Moses, COO, Origin: "The Epuron deal will see Origin build its own wind facilities for the first time, deepening integration in this area."

SEXY LITTLE RED CAR – BUT MAYBE NOT SMART

With great fanfare and celebrity endorsements, Tesla Motors sprang on the scene last year promising to bring back to life the hopes of electric car (EV) enthusiasts “killed” in the 1990s (as documented in the award-winning filmWho Killed the Electric Car?)

The company has since been behind schedule on delivering. It recently underwent “staff restructuring.” EV enthusiast and writer/engineer Forbes Bagatelle-Black had the same questions and worries as other EV fans: “Is Tesla in trouble? Are they changing the company goals and priorities? Or are they simply taking the painful steps required to transition from a startup to a full blown manufacturing company?”

What he found when he went in search of answers was not promising for the future of the EV. Bagatelle-Black: “…my anonymous source expressed concern that the recent staff changes had eliminated many of the members of Tesla’s management team with real-world experience in designing and building products for mass production. My source did not doubt that those left were smart and capable, he simply pointed out that they had much to learn in terms of accomplishing the manufacturing goals Tesla has set for itself.”

Bagatelle-Black's article suggests Tesla is a company entirely focused on bringing its little red $100,000 Roadster to market despite real-world demand for something else. Bagatelle-Black speaks for a lot of EV enthusiasts when he concludes his article with thoughts about Tesla’s more moderately-priced Whitestar sedan: “…if the company is really going to change the future, it is going to have to give us a viable replacement for the Toyota Camry/Honda Accord/Chevy Malibu-type family sedan. The Whitestar represents Tesla’s first major step in that direction, especially if rumors that it will be a plug-in hybrid are true. The day I hear confirmation that Tesla is killing the Whitestar is the day I will believe that Tesla has given up hopes of becoming a viable automobile company…”

WHENBagatelle-Black: “On January 10, 2008, the Tesla Founders Blog published a list of employees who had recently been terminated from Tesla. This list included multiple vice presidents, lead engineers, and a variety of other folks from all areas of the Tesla organization. The blogosphere erupted in speculation about the future of the company. A few days later, an unidentified individual contacted the blog owner, ex-Tesla CEO Martin Eberhard, and convinced him to remove the names from the termination list he had published. On January 19, the blog removed the entire entry, stating that “it was explained to me that Tesla and its financial backer(s) can spend far more than I can on a lawsuit.” Websites which had reprinted the original list were also contacted and asked to remove the names on the list.”

WHERETesla is based in San Carlos, CA. It has production and assembly centers in Hethel, UK, Taiwan, Rochester Hills, Michigan and Albuquerque, New Mexico. It has service centers in Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Miami and Chicago. Parts are alsomade in Germany, Norway and Thailand.

WHY- Tesla Motors has 200 employees. Those dismissed represent a small but potentially significant core group.- An unnamed source told Bagatelle-Black that Chairman of the Board Elon Musk has a “firm ‘my way or the highway’ attitude toward staff relations.”- There had been widely circulated rumors that Tesla’s more moderately priced sedan would be a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV). Those rumors have transmuted into doubt as to whether the Whitestar will emerge at all.

QUOTES- Siry, VP, Tesla: “Tesla is in great shape and we will be the first company to offer a production EV in a long while… Everyone at the company is working very hard to achieve our mission and focused on delivering cars to customers… The corporate philosophy is the same as it has always been. We are committed to building an independent car company that produces the best EVs that combine great design, performance and the best possible efficiency. I would also point out that the vast majority of the staff remains the same as it was before - we are a company of well over 200 employees and continue to grow.” - Bagatelle-Black: “…The day I hear confirmation that Tesla is killing the Whitestar is the day I will believe that Tesla has given up hopes of becoming a viable automobile company. Until then, I will keep my fingers crossed and hope for the best.”

WHATThe committee added Production Tax Credits (PTCs) and Investment Tax Credits (ITCs) to the Senate’s version of the economic stimulus package.

WHENThe committee’s measure would extend the tax credits, which will expire at the end of 2008 if not extended, through the end of 2009.

WHEREWhen the committee’s package faces the scrutiny of the full Senate and the threat of a veto from the President, the tax credits may not survive.

WHY- Wind producers and geothermal producers would get 2 cents per kilowatt-hour of power produced for every turbine or geothermal project built through 2009. Total cost: $3 billion over 10 years.- Solar and fuel-cell installers would get a 30% tax credit for installations through the end of 2009.- Residential purchasers of solar systems and solar hot-water systems through 2009 would be eligible for a 30% tax credit toward the cost of the system up to $2000.

TOUGH GOING FOR NEW ENERGY INCENTIVES

The bad news: The Bush administration has been nothing if not consistent in opposing incentives for New Energy while nevertheless making claims of support like those in the State of the Union speech. Representative Ed Markey (D-MA): “President Bush threatened a veto on the tax portion of the recently-passed energy bill, which included major incentives for a new generation of clean energy -- incentives that would have heralded a new era in green technology development. The Bush veto threat also killed the Renewable Electricity Standard which would have required that up to 15 percent of our electricity be generated from renewable sources such as wind and solar by 2020. He also opposes any mandatory cap-and-trade bill that would unleash the technology to meet the climate challenge by setting a price on carbon emissions.”

So the possibility of extensions for the Production Tax Credits (PTCs) and Investment Tax Credits (ITCs) that have underpinned New Energy expansion for the last 3 years being included in the president’s economic stimulus package is remote.

The good news: An aid to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) says Senator Baucus will push for the PTCs and ITCs in the spring. With tremendous luck, the extensions can be put in place before the New Energy industries set aside plans presently under development and lose a year of growth.

WHATExtensions for the crucial Production Tax Credits (PTCs) and Investment Tax Credits (ITCs) are not likely to be part of the economic stimulus package called for by President Bush and being taken up by Congress.

WHEN- The PTCs and ITCs have underpinned an uninterrupted expansion by the New Energy industries since 2005 when they were renewed. They will expire at the end of 2008.- 2007: $20 billion in New Energy investment, 6,000 megawatts of New Energy, tens of thousands of jobs

WHEREThis action is on D.C.’s Pennsylvania Ave., between the White House and Capitol Hill.

WHY- The economic stimulus package amounts to $150 million, 1% of U.S. GDP. It is ended to put money to work in the U.S. economy, creating growth that might otherwise be interrupted by the housing market problems. - The tremendous expansion in the New Energy industries over the last 3 years, with policy support, would on the face of it make them prime candidates for funding to obtain further economic stimulus. But the Bush administration displayed its attitude toward incentives for New Energy when it pushed them out of December’s energy bill.- According to Gregory Wetstone of the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), a letter from 30 Senators last week documented that 100,000 new jobs could be created in 2008 with “prompt” extension of the incentives

QUOTES- Tyson Slocum, energy program director, consumer group Public Citizen: “I'm not saying it can't be done, but there's a tough road ahead [to get the PTCs and ITCs in the stimulus package]…” - Emily Lawrimore, White House spokeswoman: “We would have to review the entire tax package, including the revenue offsets, before supporting any particular tax incentive…”- Gregory Wetstone, AWEA, on the hope of getting the incentives package passed: “…we don't think we're out of it.”- Rep. Markey: “If the hawk could learn to fly like a dove, can the oil man from Texas truly come clean on the environment? Only if Congress forces that choice on the President Bush…to transition our nation to a true green economy and protect the future of this beautiful planet for generations to come.”

DOE DROPPING FUTUREGEN?

This is huge news. In essence, the Department of Energy (DOE) is announcing that “clean” coal costs too much. Politicians trying to straddle the divide between New Energy producers and fossil fuels energy producers have been promising that carbon-capture-and-sequestration (CCS), or “clean” coal, is the way to burn Old Energy without generating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. They have been preaching that New Energy is “admirable” but not cost competitive. Now DOE all but comes right out and says that if the country is going to keep burning coal, it is going to have to face higher costs or it is going to have to live with GHG emissions.

Maybe it is time for the country to quit listening to politicians preaching about “clean” coal. Maybe it is time to get on with building New Energy infrastructure. Even if this DOE plant, dubbed FutureGen, were to capture all the emissions generated from burning coal – and prototypes have rarely capture even half – coal would still not be clean. There would still be the environmental devastation of coal mining. And transporting coal from the mine to that plant would generate enormous emissions.

This FutureGen project is far from over. It is a public-private undertaking by DOE and the FutureGen Alliance (9 private energy companies). When the project was launched, DOE’s share was $800 million. By last year, that had climbed to $1.3 billion. DOE is probably threatening to pull out only as a tactic in a renegotiation of who will cover the burgeoning cost. (See“CLEAN” COAL COSTS)

Alliance members could pick up the balance. It appears that is what DOE wants. But some of the companies in the Alliance spend good money to get the best Congress they can buy, so they are not reaching for their wallets yet. Fredrick Palmer, vp, FutureGen Alliance member Peabody Energy: "It is way too soon to say this project is dead, because Congress has yet to be heard from…"

WHATDOE announced it is removing its funding from FutureGen, a “clean” coal project developed with public-private investment. In response, Illinois political leaders are threatening to fight for the funding in Congress, in court and in the Oval office.

WHEN- President Bush announced this project in 2003.- DOE expressed doubts about the project’s costs earlier this month and requested a reduction in its share of the plant’s funding from $1.3 billion to $800,000.- The announced schedule calls for the Alliance to take bids this month on core technology, to break ground in the summer of 2009 and to begin operation in 2012. DOE’s hesitation is threatening to delay.

WHEREThe FutureGen Alliance had selected Mattoon, in central Illinois, for its “clean” coal plant. Mattoon beat out Tuscola, Illinois, as well as Odessa and Brazos, Texas, locations to win the opportunity to host the FutureGen plant. One of DOE’s cost-cutting suggestions is to spread the project to other (as yet unspecified) locations.

QUOTES- Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL): "…[I will] make the case for FutureGen directly to the President…We will not go down without a fight…"- DOE statement: " [DOE] remains committed to FutureGen's objectives to advance the availability and use of clean-coal technology to meet growing demand and reduce greenhouse gas emissions…[DOE] believes that the public interest mandates that FutureGen deliver the greatest possible technological benefits in the most cost-efficient manner." - Rep. Jerry Costello (D-IL):, "[DOE is] cutting and running on a project that is critical to our nation's energy future." - Rep. John Shimkus (D-IL): "…our greatest fears have been realized…Now we have to regroup and review all of our options as we move forward…President Bush proposed FutureGen in 2003, and we will start by reaching out to him."- IL Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D): "[DOE] deceived the people of East Central Illinois who spent time and resources competing for the project…We're not giving up the fight to make FutureGen a reality in Illinois…"

STIRLING ENERGY: CONCENTRATING SOLAR

Solar energy is still struggling with cost. Photovoltaic panels take a long time to pay for themselves. Thin film is not as efficient and not thoroughly tested. Consumers are unwilling to afford something more expensive than their car and regard it as a necessity, like a refrigerator, when their refrigerator already gets electricity.

That’s the best way consumers are likely to get around the cost issue.

Big solar players are bypassing the consumer and building huge solar thermal plants that do not require silicon-based photovoltaics at all. Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA), one of the most respected energy-consulting firms in the world, calls solar thermal the likely next high-growth energy resource in the world and predicts there will be 5,000 megawatts by 2020.

The biggest problem with solar thermal isn’t solar thermal, just like the biggest problem with wind energy isn’t wind energy. Without new, smart transmission systems to get the power from the plants to the population centers, these New Energies can’t move forward. The cost of building new transmission must always be considered.

Fortunately, big players see the opportunity in building new transmission. In many places around the U.S. new transmission is being built or being planned. People like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and Boone Pickens are investing. The big players see what Stirling Energy’s Bruce Osborn sees: "I guarantee there will be issues and challenges. But that's just part of business…[Still,] you don't have to worry about the fuel supply. It's free…"

There are a variety of concepts. Ausra likes parabolic mirrors to capture the light and focus it. ESolar uses flat mirrors and concentrating towers. Stirling Energy’s design – giant colletors, each with its own engine to rotate it across the sky tracking the sun – may be highly efficient. But the design has many moving parts, which makes each solar collector more expensive and potentially fragile.

In the early days of oil there was enormous distrust of the incipient science of petroleum geology. The oil men used to say that the only way to really find out if there was oil in the ground was to ask Dr. Drill. In the solar energy game, the only way to really find out if a collector works is to ask Professor Sun.

WHATStirling Energy is installing a small solar thermal plant which it hopes will be a prototype for two of the biggest solar thermal installations (800 megawatts and 950 megawatts) in the world.

WHEN- SDG&E and SCE signed an agreement in 2005 for all of Stirling Energy’s power for w0 years but the project has yet to be approved by CA regulators.- The current version of the Stirling engine was developed by McDonnell Douglas in the mid 80s, sold to SCE and eventually to Stirling Energy in 1996.- Plans call for 2 more prototypes in 2008, 2 in 2009, 40 for an installation in CA’s Mojave desert in 2010 and then there will be a production ramp up.

WHERE- Stirling Energy is based in Phoenix, AZ- The prototype system will be in Albuqueque, NM- The huge plants would be in CA

WHY- The Stirling dishes are 40-feet in diameter. They are geared to rotate across the sky, tracking the sun. Each one generates enough electricity for 10 to 15 average homes.- The CA installation would generate enough electricity to double U.S. solar energy output and power a million homes.- The engine that drives the system is based on (and named for) an 1816 patent of Rev. Robert Stirling, a Scottish clergyman, who was trying to make something safer than steam engines with explosive boilers.- Stirling has been developing financing and perfecting its technology with government engineers at Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico for the last 2 years. They have cut steel 40% and made the collectors strong enough to withstand lightning strikes and bullets. They have optimized spacing to maximize productivity and minimize land use. Each prototype costs $225,000 but mass production could bring the cost down to $50,000.- The planned production ramp up is expected to produce 80 collectors/month after 2010 and 80/day eventually. The modular nature of the collector allows for fast production as well as reconfigurations as needed.- Barry Butler, materials science expert and former Stirling employee, in written testimony to California energy regulators said the technology won’t be scalable before 2020 and maintenance costs will always make it too expensive.

QUOTES- Osborn, Stirling Energy: "This is something that hasn't been done before…We're not aware of any showstoppers. … No fatal flaws."Niggli, SDG&E: "They clearly have the technology. It's a matter of whether they can get the cost out…"- Osborn, on mass production: "It's not like you build the shuttle, launch it and it works or it doesn't…Nothing will stop us cold in our tracks."

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

BETTER THINNER SOLAR

“Thin film” is the name for solar panel-like material specially made for convenient building-integration, usually as roof shingles, siding, sunroofing or windows. It is less efficient that the traditional roof-mounted photovoltaic panel but it is cheaper and it is installed as part of a building’s structure, further defraying cost.

Investment in thin film is booming even as some give up on the long term promise of standard photovoltaic panels for any use except individual home and small business installations. Yet there is no certain formula for thin film. More test sites are necessary. Enter the Department of Energy'sSolar America Initiative.

By California or German standards, the Missouri undertaking reported here, funded in a public private-partnership, is really “small potatoes.” But it will be studied under exacting academic standards and it will allow cutting edge thin film technology to show what it can do, right in the heart of the heartland where a lot of people think alternative energy means ethanol.

So here’s a chance for solar energy to take some advice from the greatMae West(who was anything but thin film): “If you got it, flaunt it.”

WHY- The installation will cost Dow $50,000.- Columbia is donating land and spending $23,000 to fence and monitor the installation.- The MU chemistry department and its graduate students will study and evaluate the system’s performance with rigorous academic research standards.

QUOTES- Prost, Prost Builders: "Dow makes many building products, and the idea is to incorporate solar voltaic technology into the shingles of a roof or the siding of a house, something homeowners already have to spend money on anyway, but it will also collect energy. That is the Holy Grail…But it obviously has to be cost-effective where the typical homeowner would think to do it. Also, silicone is very brittle, but a shingle has to be flexible, so how do you do that? That’s what we’re working on." - Kacprowicz, Water and Light: "Right now there are not a lot of Midwest applications for solar technology…This is important because it will help measure solar efficiency from this location, which will give not only the utility but also residential users more information on what to expect from solar systems."

BIGGEST U.S. CORPS READY TO COUNT & CAP EMISSIONS

Climate change deniers ridicule activists’ heralding of the plight of the polar bear. Bjorn Lonborg, a leader among deniers, amuses audiences by pointing out that climate change may be causing the death of one polar bear per year while 100 are killed by hunting every year. What Lonborg and the others ignore is that the 100 can be prevented by a hunting regulation while the 1 cannot be saved by anything but a reversal of the way Earth’s people do things. The 1, therefore, is an indicator of inevitabilities.

In the same way, the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) and the other big corporate entities (Shell Oil, Duke Energy) joining The Climate Registry are indicators when they voluntarily submit to the extra self-monitoring and record-keeping required to report their greenhouse gas emissions to the registry.

Indicators. Of coming inevitabilities. Cap-and-trade is coming to the U.S. The smart ones are getting ready now.

WHO58 companies, cities and organizations, including Shell Oil, Xcel Energy, Alcoa, Duke Energy, PG&E, PPG Industries, National Grid and the United States Postal Service (USPS); The Climate Registry

WHATRecognizing the inevitability of coming U.S. greenhouse gas emissions control regulations, the 58 companies, cities and organizations have voluntarily signed up to report their emissions to the Climate Registry

WHENReporting will begin in June 2008. The U.S. Senate is expected to debate proposals for a U.S. cap-and-trade system around that same time though passage of the measure and institution of the system is not likely to come until after the 2008 election.

WHERE- The Climate Registry is represented in 39 U.S. states & D.C., 6 Canadian provinces, 3 Native American tribes and 2 Mexican states.- Not represented: Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia, North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska.

WHY- The Climate Registry has 51 members. The agreement was made at the Registry’s 3rd board meeting. It is an outgrowth of the California Climate Action Registry.- The list of “emissions reporters” is expected to grow past 100 by the time reporting begins. Those joining by May 1 will be dubbed “founders.”- The membership of USPS and its annual $75 billion revenues, 700,000 employees, 35,000 facilities and 200,000 vehicle fleet is considered pivotal. It signals a recognition of the inevitably at the federal level.- The states not represented tend to have the larger fossil fuels operations like oil refineries.

QUOTESDiane Wittenberg, executive director, Climate Registry: "The Climate Registry is building the infrastructure and the (reporting guidelines) to get the companies, states and provincial programs started…"

EU TO UK: BUILD OFFSHORE WIND, UP RENEWABLES

Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission (EC), which governs the European Union (EU), says the new rules outlining Phase 3 of the EU’s emissions-reduction/climate change-reversing program will make Europe "…the first economy for the low-carbon age."

If they reach their goals, the EU will leave the U.S. far behind in the development of 21st Century energy. And Maria McCaffery of the British Wind Energy Association thinks the UK share of the goals are within reach: “Wind energy is the next North Sea Oil. Britain could be a world leader in renewable energy if we have the will to make this vision a reality…"

Meanwhile, current U.S. leaders appear ready to let the production tax credits (PTCs) and investment tax credits (ITCs) that have supported unprecedented expansion in U.S. New Energy over the last 3 years lapse, dooming the solar, wind, biomass and other New Energy industries to a year of stagnation.

Just when the jobs and investment these industries have brought and will bring to this teetering economy could mean so much, Senators and Congressmen are succumbing to the bullying of the fossil fuels industries which clamor for the protection of their subsidies - at the cost of tomorrow's energy infrastructure.

WHATNew rules governing Phase 3 of the EU’s Kyoto Protocols-based emissions-reduction/climate change-reversing program of New Energy development via the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) were announced January 23. British leaders reacted favorably to stipulations for the UK.

WHEN- The EC is calling for the EU to obtain 20% of its power from New Energy and cut emissions 20% by 2020.- The EC proposal calls for the UK to obtain 15% of its power from New Energy from cut emissions 16% by 2020.- The UK got 1.3% of its power from New Energy in 2005.

WHEREMore developed EU states (Britain, Denmark) will be required to cut more emissions while emerging EU economies (Bulgaria, Romania) will beallowed modest emissions increases.

WHY- The UK expects to get 5% of its energy from a tide energy development on the River Severn.- The London Array, a major offshore wind energy development in the Thames River Estuary, is expected to be another significant power source.- Leaders of energy-intensive industries that expect to continue relying on Old Energy during the upcoming decades welcomed the new EU rules as prudently written to include emissions allowances where they are needed.

QUOTES- Hutton, Business Secretary: “The UK is already exploring a vast expansion of wind energy offshore, and tidal power on the Severn…”- Benn, Environment Secretary: "The increase in renewables is going to be a big step up from where we are now, but we are confident we can do it - we're going to have to work very hard on it."

Monday, January 28, 2008

WIND WILL BOOM IN EUROPE

The European Wind Energy Association (EWEA) praised newly announced rules governing Phase 3 of the EU’s emissions-reduction and climate change-reversing program. EWEA called for early approval and implementation.

Singled out were proposals for grid infrastructure development and new regulations allowing priority grid access to New Energy. EWEA described these as especially meaningful for New Energy growth.

With this new blueprint for a boom in European New Energy and the U.S. Congress stonewalling on extending New Energy production tax credits (PTCs) and investment tax credits (ITCs), it is looking very much like the EU will be the center of energy innovation and power in the 21st Century.

WHATEWEA welcomed the EC’s proposed rules changes for Phase 3 of the Kyoto Protocols-based climate change framework that governs energy development and emissions trading in the EU. The basic new goal is to obtain 20% of EU power from New Energy sources and to cut emissions 20% by 2020.

WHEN- Phase 3 will begin in 2013 and run through 2013.- The EC proposals must be approved by the Council and the Parliament. The EC the new proposals will be ratified by 2009.

WHEREThe 27 member states of the European Union are bound by EC-developed rules approved by the Council and the Parliament.

WHY- An important stipulation governs voluntary cross-border trading of energy supplies. States can only sell energy to other states after they have met or exceeded their own targets and investment must include funding for planning procedures and grid infrastructure.- Another stipulation is aimed at clearing up administrational complications and grid access issues.

QUOTESChristian Kjaer, CEO, EWEA: "The European Commission has today provided a powerful response to the imminent energy and climate crisis. By introducing a voluntary trading mechanism, controlled by Member States, the proposal maintains market stability, increases investor confidence and will help Member States to reach their ambitious, yet achievable, targets…The target implies that renewable energy's share of electricity will increase from 15% today to more than a third of Europe's demand in 2020. Wind energy will be the biggest contributor to that massive increase in clean electricity production…"

TURN TOWARD SOLAR IN DESPERATE S. AFRICA

S. Africa’s economy has been expanding at 10 to 15% per year for some time. In 1998, Eskom, the nation’s utility, warned the government shortages would likely arise within 10 years. New power generation building didn’t begin until 2004. Even then, it was all about coal-fired plants. Now, electricity prices just this year have jumped 14%. Public Enterprise Minister Alec Erwin: "The president has accepted that this government got its timing wrong…"

Finally, Minerals and Energy Minister Buyelwa Sonjica is talking about developing New Energy so the nation can keep its growth going. Leaders are also talking about allocating energy and fining those who exceed their caps. Two major emergency measures will be (1) a million solar water heaters over the next 3 years in hotels, hospitals and public institutions and (2) solar power for traffic lights.

The University of Johannesburg (UJ) is using the crisis to call for a massive turn to solar thin-film off-grid installions nationwide.

This could be a peep into the world’s future, a future of energy shortages and clamor for New Energy infrastructure. Or the world could be building New Energy infrastructure NOW, with both hands, before the lights go out.

WHATPower outages, sudden and unannounced, are creating “chaos and misery” all across South Africa. The economic system is slowing threateningly. Gold mining disruptions are driving up the price of gold on world markets.

WHEN- Eskom hopes to alleviate the disruptions within 4 weeks.- Political and utility leaders hope to fully alleviate the problem by the time S. Africa hosts the World Cup finals in 2010.- Some report the problem may last 5 to 8 years.

WHERENeighboring countries (Botswana, Namibia), dependent on S. Arica energy supplies, are also having outages and disruptions.

WHY- Terrible traffic snarls have been caused by the failure of intersection controls.- Reports of hundreds of tourists being stranded on an outing to Table Mountain are not encouraging the world’s interest in doing business or vacationing in S. Africa.- Major mining companies have suspended activity for fear of miners being trapped.- Gold Fields has stopped all operations, including the biggest gold mine in the world.

QUOTES- Public Enterprise Minister Alec Erwin: "The unprecedented unplanned power outages must now be treated as a national electricity emergency situation that has to be addressed with urgent, vigorous and coordinated actions…We are viewing the next two years as being critical…"- Michael Tatalias, S. Africa tourism association: "Will people come to SA to see [the 2010 World Cup finals] if they know they will be going back to hotels and guest houses with no power?"- UJ: "A move to radically different thin-film PV materials has changed the picture entirely…[It] offers a drastically reduced manufacturing cost…single houses, small villages, towns and cities can be equally well served by local PV installations."

POO POWER AT CINCINNATI ZOO

Projects to convert agricultural animal waste to biomass energy are becoming familiar but this exciting idea to use zoo poo in the same way is still new.

Interestingly, it is being set up to meet the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification standard. Mark Fisher, senior director of facilities and planning, the Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden: "From now on, every project we undertake will be with LEED certification in mind…This is a long-term, lifetime commitment we're undertaking because of the tremendous cost advantage, but more than that because it's the right thing to do for the planet."

Save money, save the world. It doesn't get better than that. Does it seem too small scale to create significant savings? Fisher: "We have four elephants weighing more than 37,000 pounds and they produce 800 pounds of waste a day. That's at least 20 kw (kilowatts) and enough to heat the elephant house and maybe giraffe house, too (on a daily basis). Right now, we pay Rumpke to haul the waste away, so there's another savings and another plus because we're diverting it from a landfill…Other animals here don't produce like elephants, but the study will look at the rhino, giraffe, other hoofed stock and even tiger output for conversion rates."

The zoo will also collect its gardening waste and visitors’ leftover food for the project. It will not collect human poo.

When the project goes online, it will be where visitors can observe and learn about the process. Charming.

WHAT“Poo Power” is an innovative undertaking by the zoo to turn animal dung into biomass energy. When the project is complete, the elephant and giraffe houses will be heated cooled and lit by the energy generated from the dung. Poo Power is part of a zoo “Go Green” initiative that includes a variety of environmentally conscious improvements.

WHEN- The biomass energy will not be running the heating for animals’ houses for 2 years.- A feasibility study of the zoo’s waste resources and the size of the power plant needed will be done first.- The first hard numbers are expected in Spring 2008.

WHEREDenver and Dallas Zoos beginning similar projects.

WHY- The cost savings is expected to be tens of thousands of dollars in the early stages of the project, while the infrastructure pays for itself, and more later.- Duke Energy and the Ohio Department of Development will put up the $15,000 to $20,000 for the feasibility study. - Duke sees the project as an opportunity to study small scale biomass waste-to-energy generation, a study which might add to its large scale industrial agriculture projects. - The poo generate methane gas which will be converted into energy either via a gasification unit or an anaerobic digester. Gasification uses heat. The digester uses microorganisms.- LEED, a national program, comes from the U.S. Green Building Council. It promotes “environmentally sustainable construction and energy” use. It rates a building as Certified, Silver, Gold or Platinum. The zoo's education center is the only Silver Certified building in Cincinnati and two points short of Gold.

QUOTES- Fisher, Cincinnati Zoo: "…We realize it's something that will cost us more on the front end but will pay huge dividends as time goes by. Some of the changes we've made or are making will pay for themselves in as little as a year."- Lefeld, Duke Energy: "The biomass technology is out there and functional, but it has never been done on a small scale…Huge factory farms that produce tons of waste a day use it, but we don't have tons to work with, so one of our first jobs after the study will be to design and build a small unit for smaller-scale facilities."- Fisher: "At the end of the day…the most important thing is that this is the right thing to do."

Sunday, January 27, 2008

THE EU PRESENTS: THE FUTURE OF EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS

While the U.S. does everything it can to protect the fossil fuels industries and the emissions they generate, the European Union (EU) is aggressively confronting the “anthropogenic” part of anthropogenic climate change.

This week the rules that will govern the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) for 2013 through 2020, Phase 3 of the European Union’s heroic effort to reduce emissions through market processes, were announced. The new rules implement previously agreed-on EU targets for obtaining 20% of power from New Energy and a 20% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. Some business and political leaders heralded the new standards while some environmentalists, including IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri, wanted 30% goals.

Instituting the EU’s cap-and-trade system has been no easy matter for the European Commission (EC), the executive body for the Union. In its earliest stages, it reminded many of the Yeats line, “A terrible beauty is born.” But the EC has vigilantly adjusted the system and in the process discovered much about what makes cap-and-trade work.

The most troublesome aspect of the EU’s efforts remains that so many nations of the world remain outside the EU ETS and any other emissions-cutting cap-and-trade system.

But some EU leaders remain optimistic that the rest of the world (i.e., China, India and the U.S.) will respond to their leadership. Hilary Benn, MP/UK Environment Secretary: "This plan shows exactly what we are aiming for globally --a comprehensive and affective agreement to tackle climate change, with the carbon market at its heart. With a global deal the EU will up its commitment to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 30 percent by 2020."

EC Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso is more realistic: "We do not want to be dependent on regimes that are not our friends and want to protect ourselves from them…"

Possibly the most important new rule is the decision to consider CO2 that is captured and sequestered to be NOT counted in a power plant’s emissions. This will likely make carbon-capture-and-sequestration (CCS) a much more appealing economic prospect.

A disappointment is that the new rules exclude trading credits for preventing deforestation.

Perhaps the most progressive idea under consideration was the “emissions-rendition” idea that would put an import tariff on goods from nations without an emissions-reduction program so as to make them as expensive as goods manufactured in the EU, where the cost is higher as a result of EU emissions caps. The EC, which formulated the new rules on behalf of the EU, did not institute the tariff but did not rule out the possibility of coming back to it.

Many in the U.S. may not want to read it but the EU is the standard-setter on New Energy development and climate change initiatives. If the U.S. does not get in the game soon, it will miss out on a huge economic opportunity.

WHAT- New rules for Phase 3 of the European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) were announced. - Auctioning of permits for emissions has emerged as the crucial factor in making the cap-and-trade system effective. If permits are given to emitters freely, trading of the excess amounts does not end up making them expensive enough to cut emissions. If they are too expensive, it would slow economic development.

WHEN- Phase 2 began in 2008 and runs through 2012.- Phase 3 will begin in 2013 and run through 2020.- The new Phase 3 measures were announced January 23.- 2013 EU allocation: 1974 tonnes CO2e; 2020 EU allocation: 1720 tonnes CO2e. - 2013 through 2020 and 2021 through 2028: Allocation falls 1.74%/year.- The new rules must still be ratified by EU leaders and the EU Parliament.

WHERE- There are 27 nations in the European Union.- The ETS covers power plants, oil refineries, coke ovens, iron and steel plants, and makers of cement, glass, lime, bricks, ceramics, pulp, paper and board. Phase 3 will include aluminium and ammonia producers.

WHY- The EU will cut permits, lowering emissions to 21% below 2005 levels by 2020- EU electricity prices are expected to rise 10 to 15%- 5% of allocations set aside for new energy installations and new airlines.- Utilities must purchase ALL emissions permits after 2013. Decisions on free/auctioned permits for other sectors will be made after 2010. On average, 60% of permits will be auctioned after 2013.- Airlines and oil refineries will pay for 20% of permits in 2013 and that will rise to 100% for 2020.

- Each member nation will have its own auction for its own emitting businesses and industries.- An import tariff is not on the schedule but is not ruled out.- Permits not used in Phase 2 can be used in Phase 3.- Nitrous oxide (N2O) and perfluorocarbons will be included in the list of greenhouse gases after 2012.

QUOTESHere are selections from a fascinatingly broad sampling of opinion collated by Reuters:- David Porter, CEO, Assoc of electricity producers (95% of UK power): "One way or another reducing carbon emissions from the electricity industry costs money. It will be interesting to see how the revenue that is taken from the electricity industry is used when it gets into government hands." - Jake Ulrich, Managing Director, Centric Energy: "It is good news that in the power generation sector at least, the Commission is moving from a system of free handouts of allowances to emit CO2 to full auctioning instead. This will ensure that the polluter pays and will end huge windfalls to the highest polluting generators." - John Hutton, MP/UK Business Secretary: "The Commission's proposals on removing regulatory barriers to Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) are vital. Demonstration of this globally significant technology must happen as soon as possible and I hope that the UK's demonstrator plant, expected to be up and running by 2014, can fully participate in EU initiatives on CCS demonstration." - Robt Bailey, Oxfam Intn’l: "Oxfam is already seriously concerned that the EU's biofuels strategy fails to protect the land, livelihoods and human rights of vulnerable people, creating a huge threat to sustainable development where there should have been an opportunity. It is untenable for the EC to proceed with this legislation in the knowledge that it is unlikely to deliver on its primary policy objective of reducing emissions from transport." - Robt Casamento, Director/Utilities, Ernst & Young: "Europe has been the global leader on emissions trading for the last three years -- but the EU needs to consider the pace and the scale of implementing changes to the developing ETS(Emissions Trading Scheme). It cannot continue to go it alone without others such as the U.S. and eventually India and China-- emissions trading schemes need to be developed worldwide." - Mark Spelman, Global Strategy Head, Accenture: "Dirty energy will become a real and tangible cost for business. Despite the large venture capital investment going into renewables, the outlook is that we will remain hugely dependent on fossil fuels for the next 25 years... Renewables is a step in the right direction but coal remains the big, unanswered question."

BIG BUSINESS INDIA LIKES NEW ENERGY

China and India, India and China – the elephants in the room. It is not that nobody talks about them; it is that nobody can do anything about them except watch in awe as they consume inconceivable amounts of energy and spew intolerable amounts of greenhouse gases. Both nations are replicating U.S. 19th-century expansion in 21st-century proportions.

Here Santipada Gon Chaudhuri, an expert on New Energy in India if anybody is, describes his expectations for India through 2030. What is somewhat surprising is his certainty that though India is presently a world leader in wind energy production and is barely started in solar energy development, India’s future is in solar power plants. On the other hand, it is not all that surprising since more and more people are looking to the solar power plant as the truly commercial-scale form of New Energy.

Chaudhuri also acknowledges another reality of New Energy rarely spoken aloud: It has become just as much a realm of corporate giants as the fossil fuels businesses. The image of the little off-grid green guy is a curiosity of the 1970s though, if Chaudhuri is right, the dream lives on.

Chaudhuri: “Corporates see green energy as a future business in the electricity sector. Suzlon, Enercon, Vestas, Exide, Tata BP Solar and Moser Baer have already invested in this sector. Others like Texaco and Sharp BP Group have shown interest, particularly with the global warming issue driving them…those investing in renewable energy should be given special treatment because such investors are working to protect mother earth.”

WHATChaudhuri answers Roychowdhury’s questions about future development in India’s New Energy sector.

WHEN- India’s total power requirement will be 650,000 megawatts (MW) by 2030. 260, 000 MW will come from thermal generation (fossil fuels). Hydro can provide 150,000 MW. Nuclear, 50,000 MW. 200,000MW must come from New Energy. - By 2050, India may have made the transition to a “green economy.”

WHERE- Globally and in India the growth rate of New Energy is 30 to 45%.- Commerical scale solar plants are feasible in India’s desert areas (Rajasthan, Gujarat). There is a pilot project going up in West Bengal.

WHY- Chaudhuri thinks only solar power plants can scale up to 650,000 MW. He foresees decreasing solar energy costs with increasing volumes of solar cell production. He also foresees improved solar cell efficiency. He foresees solar energy prices reaching parity with conventional prices by 2015. He foresees regular and ongoing 50 to 100 MW solar energy plants after 2015.- India’s next biggest New Energies are and will continue to be wind and biomass (especially from waste).- Coal, hydro, wind and biomass are all presently in the area of Rs 3-4/kW-hour. Solar is Rs 12/kW-hour, but was Rs 20/kW-hour in 2002. By 2015, it will be in the area of Rs 3-4/kW-hour.- Most solar is presently individual solar panel installations.

QUOTES- Chaudhuri: “The world is moving towards a green energy or renewable energy economy, although we are totally based on a fossil fuel economy at present…”- Chaudhuri: “I wish by now more corporates took an interest, but there are risk factors relating to technology—like whether a technology will soon be outdated or how much it is proven—and that is always the prime concern of investors…But I find that over the last two years, the private sector has taken a lot of interest…”

CHILE SENATE DOES WHAT U.S. SENATE CAN’T

The U.S. Senate, after a year-long struggle, fell one vote shy of pushing through a national Renewable Energy Standard (RES) which would have required U.S. utilities to obtain 15% of their energy from renewable sources or efficiency measures by 2020.

To the credit of President Bachelet’s government, Chile’s Senate passed such a bill on January 23. Chile’s goals are modest but it clearly sees the wisdom of setting a national standard and schedule of consumption on which producers can depend as they risk their investments in New Energy.

It would be pure speculation to observe that the announcement of new wind energy projects to be built by huge multinational mining interests (SeeCHILE TO BUILD WIND) could have had something to do with the government’s enthusiasm for New Energy. It is not speculation to observe that the wind build was spurred by newly uncertain supplies of energy from traditional sources: Once dependable Argentinean natural gas supplies have been cut back as that nation struggles with its own energy shortages; Once dependable hydro power has been failing in the face of droughts.

WHEN- The Chilean plan sets a 5% goal for 2014 and a 10% goal for 2024.- The plan must be approved by Chile’s lower house in March.

WHEREThe new law requires utilities to put power from renewable sources onto one of Chile’s 2 main grids, the SIC in the central heartland and the SING in the desert mining hub.

WHY- The government says it expects the RES to spur development and bring New Energy prices into parity with prices for thermal (fossil fuel) plant power and hydro power.- Chile is thought to have “ample” solar, wind and wave energy resources but gets only 2.4% of its electricity from New Energy sources. The global average is 4%.

QUOTESMarcelo Tokman, Minister, National Energy Commission: "We are conducting an analysis that is showing that it is possible to have sources of energy at the same cost as traditional sources but generated through renewable, non-conventional means…"

Saturday, January 26, 2008

The Story of Stuff Teaser #1

This delightful video teasingly raises the question of who pays for "externalities" -- a crucial question to ask about energy costs.It is the first in a series of teasers for a 20-minute film, "The Story Of Stuff," now available at YouTube.

Fire in the Delta

This video, a montage of scenes showing the beauty of the people and landscape of the Niger River Delta in Nigeria, was submitted to NewEnergyNews via "comments." It is a powerful, sometimes distrubing, 5-minute piece accompanied by terrific music.

This posting constitutes no endorsement of violence perpetrated by terrorists, freedom fighters or oil companies.

Friday, January 25, 2008

THERE’S WORK IN THE SUN

Nobody speaks more eloquently, convincingly or passionately about New Energy’s potential to transform the U.S. economy than former President Bill Clinton: "[To green a building] somebody's got to be standing on that roof." Clinton regularly points out that the buildings most in need of retrofitting are in the inner cities, where the greatest need is for manual-skills jobs. A recent study found that most such work pays decent wages, has benefits and is open to trainees.

Ian Kim, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights: "As the green economy takes off, we have the opportunity from the beginning to lock in the people who have tended to be locked out of the workforce…"

Skeptics await concrete numbers. Marcellus Andrews, economist, Columbia University: "The people who talk about green-collar jobs as the solution to low-skilled unemployment overestimate the number of jobs and underestimate the supply of labor…"

Andrews, however, is reportedly only dubious because he thinks a lot of the new jobs might go to immigrants. Now that’s a good one: Turning an economic opportunity into a fight about immigration. That’s why they say a one-handed economist is helpless: On the one hand there probably aren’t enough jobs but on the other hand, if there are, they’ll go to the "wrong" Americans.

WHY- There is now a shortage of workers to fill New Energy jobs in emerging hubs like the San Francisco, CA, “Bay Area.”- Advocates say the dwindling U.S. industrial base can be transformed into a “clean-tech” base. - 22 sectors of the economy involve green-collar jobs. (Ex: biodiesel vehicle repair, nontoxic printing, home weatherizing, sustainable landscaping) - Presidential candidate/former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC): Would train/employ 150,000+ workers/year for green-energy jobs.- Presidential candidate/Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL): Would use part of $150 billion generated over 10 years by his proposed cap-and-trade system to pay for green job-training.- Presidential candidate/Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY): Would make $5 billion in clean-technology investments as part of her economic stimulus plan. (There is currently legislation in the Senate S.A. 1515 co-sponsored by Senator Clinton.)- Presidential candidate/Sen. John McCain (R-AZ): Recognizes a need for green technology job training.

QUOTES- Angela Greene, solar panel installer, Richmond, CA: "I saw I would be able to make a stable income for myself…and at the same time be able to help my community and the environment." - Joel Makower, executive editor, greenbiz.com: "Nearly every city is vying to become a hub of clean technology or green-collar jobs. Every community college that has any budget to develop a new program is looking at a lot of these new technologies…"

Plug-in Hybrids: The Cars that will ReCharge America by Sherry Boschert: "Smart companies plan ahead and try to be the first to adopt new technology that will give them a competitive advantage. That’s what Toyota and Honda did with hybrids, and now they’re sitting pretty. Whichever company is first to bring a good plug-in hybrid to market will not only change their fortune but change the world."

Oil On The Brain; Adventures from the Pump to the Pipeline by Lisa Margonelli: "Spills are one of the costs of oil consumption that don’t appear at the pump. [Oil consultant Dagmar Schmidt Erkin]’s data shows that 120 million gallons of oil were spilled in inland waters between 1985 and 2003. From that she calculates that between 1980 and 2003, pipelines spilled 27 gallons of oil for every billion “ton miles” of oil they transported, while barges and tankers spilled around 15 gallons and trucks spilled 37 gallons. (A ton of oil is 294 gallons. If you ship a ton of oil for one mile you have one ton mile.) Right now the United States ships about 900 billion ton miles of oil and oil products per year."

NOTEWORTHY IN THE MEDIA:
NewEnergyNews would welcome any media-saavy volunteer who would like to re-develop this section of the page. Announcements and reviews of film, television, radio and music related to energy and environmental issues are welcome.

Review of OIL IN THEIR BLOOD, The American Decades by Mark S. Friedman

OIL IN THEIR BLOOD, The American Decades, the second volume of Herman K. Trabish’s retelling of oil’s history in fiction, picks up where the first book in the series, OIL IN THEIR BLOOD, The Story of Our Addiction, left off. The new book is an engrossing, informative and entertaining tale of the Roaring 20s, World War II and the Cold War. You don’t have to know anything about the first historical fiction’s adventures set between the Civil War, when oil became a major commodity, and World War I, when it became a vital commodity, to enjoy this new chronicle of the U.S. emergence as a world superpower and a world oil power.

As the new book opens, Lefash, a minor character in the first book, witnesses the role Big Oil played in designing the post-Great War world at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. Unjustly implicated in a murder perpetrated by Big Oil agents, LeFash takes the name Livingstone and flees to the U.S. to clear himself. Livingstone’s quest leads him through Babe Ruth’s New York City and Al Capone’s Chicago into oil boom Oklahoma. Stymied by oil and circumstance, Livingstone marries, has a son and eventually, surprisingly, resolves his grievances with the murderer and with oil.

In the new novel’s second episode the oil-and-auto-industry dynasty from the first book re-emerges in the charismatic person of Victoria Wade Bridger, “the woman everybody loved.” Victoria meets Saudi dynasty founder Ibn Saud, spies for the State Department in the Vichy embassy in Washington, D.C., and – for profound and moving personal reasons – accepts a mission into the heart of Nazi-occupied Eastern Europe. Underlying all Victoria’s travels is the struggle between the allies and axis for control of the crucial oil resources that drove World War II.

As the Cold War begins, the novel’s third episode recounts the historic 1951 moment when Britain’s MI-6 handed off its operations in Iran to the CIA, marking the end to Britain’s dark manipulations and the beginning of the same work by the CIA. But in Trabish’s telling, the covert overthrow of Mossadeq in favor of the ill-fated Shah becomes a compelling romance and a melodramatic homage to the iconic “Casablanca” of Bogart and Bergman.

Monty Livingstone, veteran of an oil field youth, European WWII combat and a star-crossed post-war Berlin affair with a Russian female soldier, comes to 1951 Iran working for a U.S. oil company. He re-encounters his lost Russian love, now a Soviet agent helping prop up Mossadeq and extend Mother Russia’s Iranian oil ambitions. The reunited lovers are caught in a web of political, religious and Cold War forces until oil and power merge to restore the Shah to his future fate. The romance ends satisfyingly, America and the Soviet Union are the only forces left on the world stage and ambiguity is resolved with the answer so many of Trabish’s characters ultimately turn to: Oil.

Commenting on a recent National Petroleum Council report calling for government subsidies of the fossil fuels industries, a distinguished scholar said, “It appears that the whole report buys these dubious arguments that the consumer of energy is somehow stupid about energy…” Trabish’s great and important accomplishment is that you cannot read his emotionally engaging and informative tall tales and remain that stupid energy consumer. With our world rushing headlong toward Peak Oil and epic climate change, the OIL IN THEIR BLOOD series is a timely service as well as a consummate literary performance.

Review of OIL IN THEIR BLOOD, The Story of Our Addiction by Mark S. Friedman

"...ours is a culture of energy illiterates." (Paul Roberts, THE END OF OIL)

OIL IN THEIR BLOOD, a superb new historical fiction by Herman K. Trabish, addresses our energy illiteracy by putting the development of our addiction into a story about real people, giving readers a chance to think about how our addiction happened. Trabish's style is fine, straightforward storytelling and he tells his stories through his characters.

The book is the answer an oil family's matriarch gives to an interviewer who asks her to pass judgment on the industry. Like history itself, it is easier to tell stories about the oil industry than to judge it. She and Trabish let readers come to their own conclusions.

She begins by telling the story of her parents in post-Civil War western Pennsylvania, when oil became big business. This part of the story is like a John Ford western and its characters are classic American melodramatic heroes, heroines and villains.

In Part II, the matriarch tells the tragic story of the second generation and reveals how she came to be part of the tales. We see oil become an international commodity, traded on Wall Street and sought from London to Baku to Mesopotamia to Borneo. A baseball subplot compares the growth of the oil business to the growth of baseball, a fascinating reflection of our current president's personal career.

There is an unforgettable image near the center of the story: International oil entrepreneurs talk on a Baku street. This is Trabish at his best, portraying good men doing bad and bad men doing good, all laying plans for wealth and power in the muddy, oily alley of a tiny ancient town in the middle of everywhere. Because Part I was about triumphant American heroes, the tragedy here is entirely unexpected, despite Trabish's repeated allusions to other stories (Casey At The Bat, Hamlet) that do not end well.

In the final section, World War I looms. Baseball takes a back seat to early auto racing and oil-fueled modernity explodes. Love struggles with lust. A cavalry troop collides with an army truck. Here, Trabish has more than tragedy in mind. His lonely, confused young protagonist moves through the horrible destruction of the Romanian oilfields only to suffer worse and worse horrors, until--unexpectedly--he finds something, something a reviewer cannot reveal. Finally, the question of oil must be settled, so the oil industry comes back into the story in a way that is beyond good and bad, beyond melodrama and tragedy.

Along the way, Trabish gives readers a greater awareness of oil and how we became addicted to it. Awareness, Paul Roberts said in THE END OF OIL, "...may be the first tentative step toward building a more sustainable energy economy. Or it may simply mean that when our energy system does begin to fail, and we begin to lose everything that energy once supplied, we won't be so surprised."

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.